=========================================================================== | This text is compiled from posts by J. Michael Straczynski on the Usenet | group alt.tv.babylon-5. This document contains material Copyright 1993 | J. Michael Straczynski. He has given permission for his words to be | redistributed online, as long as they are marked as being copyright JMS. | This document, as well as other Babylon-5 related material, is available | by anonymous FTP at ftp.hyperion.com. =========================================================================== From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 1 Nov 1993 00:46:49 -0500 Subject: Comments on B5 Thus far, with 22 stories ready and slugged for this season, we haven't done any of the ones you warn against...so I guess we're doing something right.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 1 Nov 1993 02:48:23 -0500 Subject: A (trivial) suggestion Happily, we're doing that; the bartender is generally the same, we have a recurring character as one of the techs in the observation dome, some of our security people are repeaters, and so on. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Nov 1993 05:31:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 One thing we're trying to do on B5 in this respect is to really use three-dimensional space, on the full x-y-z axis for ship movements and the like. Opens up all kinds of wonderful opportunities. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 2 Nov 1993 06:13:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 Thanks. The process has sometimes not been easy. More often than not, one runs into fairly blunt opinions. But that's part of the process. Many people I know in the TV or film business have tried to maintain such a line, and just get turned off or insulted and go away. Or they come in briefly to get the PR invovled, a la "Sneakers," and then they're gone. A few stay...George Martin, others. And sometimes it's very hard to take it on the chin from someone you've never met, who's just called something you worked on for five years "crap" and sometimes for reasons that are more in the perception than the reality (such as the internet user who flamed me for using wrist links when it's clearly established that in the future we will all be using chest-communicators a la TNG, and thus every time I used our links it broke the illusion for him).... But in the long run, it's been, and continues to be more of a positive experience than a negative one. Because some of the criticisms have merit, and need to be addressed. Other times, hard questions get asked, and I have to sit down and really think about this character or that situation, and in doing so, those answers end up helping the show. Every day, I find anywhere from 30-60 messages in my GEnie box, most of them Internet relays, and it's like opening a puzzle box...you're never entirely sure what you're going to find inside. And most of the messages are informed, and literate, and challenging, which is the part I enjoy most. As for the rest...my sense is this: a long time ago, when we began this journey -- and I've been on-line talking about B5 on the nets for several *years* now -- the one thing that was foremost in my mind was the sense that SF media fans are probably the most exploited such fans around. They're expected to be cash cows who line up and buy the products, no talking or shoving in the lines, and for god's sake no questions or hassle. They're often valued for as long as they continue to buy the merchandise. Every year, producers who don't know SF, and don't know fandom, and really don't care, trundle out their shows as the Next Best Thing Since Sliced Bread, raise a lot of attention...and when the show turns into crap, they're suddenly nowhere to be found. When the pilot aired, I stuck around. And I'll do all I can to stick around while the series is airing. (The only glitches may be when I'm hip deep in production.) This is my audience, and I feel that one should be responsive and receptive to one's audience, and not run out when things get uncomfortable. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. See, the thing is, I *am* a fan, and I've *been* a fan, from a kid growing up on Bradbury and Clarke and Tolkein and Doc Smith to the present...I've sat in the audience and listened to those aforementioned producers at conventions and waited, only to be disappointed. And when the time came to do B5, I swore that I'd try and do it differently...that there would be an ongoing dialogue with the viewers of the show, that we'd listen and be responsive and not just exploit, and if we didn't have answers to the hard questions then by god we'd go and we'd GET the answers. Or look like idiots. Because it's the fans who keep this medium alive, and to ingore that aspect seems to me inappropriate. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Nov 1993 01:11:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Lifespan of a Centauri / h We're using a tachyon communications system to handle the FTL problem regarding communications. As for the coloration of the jump gate (if we're talking about the same thing), the wave effect is red-shifted when you enter the jump gate, and blue-shifted when coming out. I think we had that slightly out of phase in the pilot; it's since been corrected to match correct red-shift. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Nov 1993 01:20:18 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS: Recent? stuff... Actually, your description of how it would work is closer to how it does work and what's been done. My description was less than perfect. When Ron does ship movement stuff, he programs in the dynamics of motion so that it's pre-calculated to be correct. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 3 Nov 1993 14:00:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Comments on B5 Re: "wonder at the mystery of life." Hold that thought and write it down, and yank it out before watching "Mind War" and "The Parliament of Dreams." You'll understand. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:53:12 -0500 Subject: Question for JMS... Kosh will "speak" in the series. After a fashion. But not as you might expect. Suffice to say we've seen the final effect now in the mix of finished episodes, and it's *real* creepy. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:53:34 -0500 Subject: Starfury launch error in cgi? I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this is an error. This launch scenario is the one best suggested by some of the techie types we've gone to. In addition, you want to fire with the nose facing out because you want to get the engines going as quickly as possible, once you're clear of the bay, to get the ship *outward* as soon as possible, because the primary docking bay is at the "front" of the station, and you don't want to have a flight of fighters entering your primary traffic lane. The noses of the furies when releeased are pointing in the "down" direction of centrifugal force, and that's the direction in which they should be released. Nor would they travel diagonally along the station in any event; they'd go at a nominal curve away from the cobra launch bays much the same as a rock tied to a string flies away from you when you release it after whirling it around your head. This works, and makes the most common, and scientific sense. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:02 -0500 Subject: Starfury launch error in cgi? P.S. The traveling diagonally alongside the station only works if the station is accellerating forward as well as rotating. But the station isn't moving forward, it's stationary. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:09 -0500 Subject: StarFuries The Starfuries are intended ONLY for non-atmospheric combat. They're not really built for atmospheres; they'd have all the aerodynamic facility of a brick. There are "wings" of a sort which mainly exist to put the multidirectional thrusters in the right locations to be of most use, to allow the craft to fire engines in any direction at any time, so it can go forward, sideways, upside down, backwards, you name it. The closer you put them to the center of a small ship, the less effective they are; you want them some distance away...and far enough so that when they fire to the side, they're not flashing right next to your field of vision. The weaponry is mainly forward mounted. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 4 Nov 1993 02:54:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 "Would it be fair to compare the original ST pilot to B5's pilot?" No, it would not. Because there is nothing in common with them other than that they are both SF. You can compare TNG to DS9 to TOS, because they're in the same universe. Would it be fair to compare Cagney and Lacey with NYPD Blue? After all, they're both cop shows. But in fact, they're not the same kind of cop show; they share the same genre, but there ends the overlap. The two shows are distinct, separate entities, just as Harlan Ellison's work is distinct from Bill Gibson's work, even though both incorprorate elements of SF. The ST pilot existed in its own universe, and was primarily an action show. The B5 pilot exists in its own universe, and primarily sets the stage for a political mystery/intrigue series. It wasn't meant to serve the same functions as the ST pilot. It seems to me that many SF fans continue to compare everything to ST because that's their primary frame of reference, and they continue to apply it whether it's relevant or not. My suggestion...get another frame of reference. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Nov 1993 00:48:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 Once again, there's a lot of false analogies here in any attempt to compare pilots, as in this TOS and B5 thread. You're talking about transporters and other *technological* items. And you're right, they didn't explain their tech. Neither did we, with the exception of the changling net in the pilot, and only because it was a plot point. We didn't explain how the jump gates worked, how centrifugal force kept the gravity in place, or any of that. The difference isn't *technology*, it's *context*. Once again, B5 is in many ways a *political* story. Consequently it's necessary to explain who the players are in some detail, something that ST didn't have to worry about. If you're reading a political thriller about the U.S. and the (now defunct) USSR, it helps a lot to know who's who. Also, when ST started, there wasn't really a clear agenda, a place that they were going, story-wise. B5 is a novel for TV. And that puts on some pressures and problems other shows don't have. Others may not see it that way, but it isn't their call. It's my call, and I stand behind it, even while seeing some of the flaws in the pilot. All of which again points up the...well, *pointlessness* of trying to compare the two shows. Compare MASH to ALL IN THE FAMILY. They're both comedies. The similarity ends there. Everything doesn't have to be comparable or dissectable (to coin a term) in reference to ST. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 5 Nov 1993 03:48:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 The first one-hour episode of the series, "Midnight on the Firing Line," does a fair amount of re-introduction, for those who've seen the pilot and need to be up to speed, and some introducing for those who haven't. It is, however, largely an action-oriented story, into which we weave the characterization. It manages to convey some of the same info as the pilot, but in a *much* more dramatic fashion. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 6 Nov 1993 02:03:19 -0500 Subject: Why fighters at all? Why fighters? Real simple. The stations shielding is good, but not great; fighters could punch a hole in it. So on that level, they're there for defense. But aside from that, B5 is charged with being a port of call, and thus must keep those traffic lanes in its general vicinity safe. So fighters are sometimes called upon to protect civilian vessels from a variety of threats. Also, if a ship is disabled and unable to find the station, or otherwise hobbled, a fighter escort can be sent to get them to the station. They're *very* useful. jms (P.S. Just a thought...but I've been watching the discussion of the Starfury launch sequence with great interest, particularly in light of the fact that only -- what? -- 20 seconds of B5 material has been released, and that alone has triggered off a detailed scientific discussion of rotational gravity, centripidal force, and other aspects of physics. I can only wonder what more detailed discussions will be triggered once we actually begin showing whole *episodes*.) From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 6 Nov 1993 20:44:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Starfury launch error in c Yes, this is what we were going for. The use of outward force to push the fighters away from the station (rotational force) has nothing to do with catapulting the ships, it's just a low-fuel, high-economy way of getting the ships away by taking advantage of the station's rotation, so they can fire their engines at a safe distance from the station. It's the fastest way overall to launch a whole bunch of fighters while leaving the primary docking bay clear for larger ships. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Nov 1993 01:46:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 Then again, by the definition you apply, no good characterization can be done, no surprises can come along, in a novel, since a novel is generally planned out and outlined prior to being written. But in fact you CAN do solid characterizations in novels; if anything a novel-like approach (as with B5) lets you do *more* characterization by virtue of constructing a whole person. I would also point you toward "The Prisoner," which had a definite story, a definite beginning, middle and end, but is very MUCH a character story, with lots of surprises. In any event, you may want to check out the series before pronouncing judgment...who knows, you might just be...surprised. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 8 Nov 1993 01:59:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 The other problem with "Twin Peaks," of course, is that they opened up a lot of questions, but never *really* answered any of them. In B5, every question we ask, will be answered. jms (I would also, btw, not characterize B5 as a "mystery" series; like Casablanca, it's a character-based story which uses intrigue and mystery to heighten the characters.) From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 9 Nov 1993 01:04:36 -0500 Subject: B5 schedule. Babylon 5 is on schedule, and on-budget. You can't be ahead of schedule in TV, because you have to allocate so many days for any single episode, and that's written in stone. But we're absolutely spot on, and keeping to the budget, which is something of a first for an SF series. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 9 Nov 1993 01:20:31 -0500 Subject: JMS comments and encouriagemen Thanks. Anytime.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 9 Nov 1993 11:06:44 -0500 Subject: B5's Weapons One thing to bear in mind is that the hand-weapon used by the assassin in the B5 pilot was the equivilent of a derringer; it wasn't made for such consistent use. It has a longer recharge period than, say, a full-fledged hand-held PPG or a rifle version. One thing we're trying to get into is the reality of how beam weapons would operate. They would chew through a lot of energy, very fast, and need large energy supplies; the smaller the gun, the longer the power build. What we've instituted with our regular weaponry is to include energy pods in the same basic holster as the guns. So you have a hand-held PPG with energy pod in place, looking more or less like a regular gun (in silhouette, anyway, meaning that it's hand held), with an additional pod at the ready for when that one runs out. You run out, pop the pod, slap in another, and you're ready to go. The rifle versions have larger pods which can fire even more quickly, and can go longer without recharging. Though it's TV, we're trying to hew at least to some degree to what seems reasonable; guns shouldn't have an infinite firing capability, there is no such thing as an infinite power source that can fit into a small space, like a gun. We've also redesigned the actual burst of the gun to make it look faster, and deadlier, than before. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 9 Nov 1993 21:24:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Why is it "Coming in Janua Just some corrections to your message.... The January start time has little to do with the points you raise. It doesn't give us (or any other show) a longer lead time, because what you do is backtrack from when you want to be on the air, to when you should start preproduction to meet that date, then factor in about a month just to be on the safe side, as a buffer. That applies whether your show goes on the air in January or September. It's no longer a shooting schedule than any other show. Our schedule is seven working days per episode, which is pretty much standard. There's no "smaller episode package to try and peddle" because we're doing 22 episodes, which were pre-sold to the stations. And nobody does 27 episodes of any series anymore, not in years and years. Even the most successful top-10 series -- and I was on one -- doesn't usually get more than 24 episodes total per season. There's also no financial roll-over to the show, since it began in July (for pre-production), and continues throughout. There are really only a few factors involved in a January launch: it does come toward mid-season when people have seen what else is out there, and you're not competing in the fall season push with major network shows that outnumber you 10-1. Also, January/February are the next big Sweeps period for ratings after the fall, so that's the time you pick. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 9 Nov 1993 21:27:10 -0500 Subject: Minor visual discrepency final That ain't it. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 10 Nov 1993 04:26:27 -0500 Subject: Re-runs of Capt. Power? Better check the temperature in hell first...ain't gonna happen. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 15 Nov 1993 06:33:20 -0500 Subject: .AVI request With regrets, a) I don't know how to do an AVI file, and b) even if I did, PTEN (which won't let me post gifs) wouldn't let me post that, either. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 16 Nov 1993 13:04:48 -0500 Subject: Re: StarFurries? That notion of waivers has been proposed, repeatedly, and shot down, repeatedly unfortunately. Not seeing ideas is the only way to protect oneself in these lawsuit-happy times. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 16 Nov 1993 14:16:16 -0500 Subject: Master plan, was Re: Trek vs. I approached B5 with the theory that *every episode* must be able to stand completely alone, and be appreciated completely on its own terms. If you never saw another episode of B5, you got a solid hour's entertainment out of it. It's only as you see more episodes that you gradually become aware of a much larger story going on here. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 16 Nov 1993 14:42:24 -0500 Subject: Re: B5's Weapons You want helium gas bursts when the PPG is fired? You want it to look more like projectile weaponry when fired? You want recoil? You want the impact to diminish over distance? You want the kind of sound you would get if something that superheated burst through a section of the air? Guess what? You got it. That's *exactly* how a PPG operates. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 16 Nov 1993 16:44:02 -0500 Subject: Re: B5 computer screens We've redesigned the monitors to look less like conventional CRTs and more like flatscreens. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 07:38:36 -0500 Subject: There is no BOOM in space! Unless extreme conditions merit it, we've generally gone more for music than for sound effects in space. It works better, looks better,m sounds better. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 08:02:53 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS: Recent stuff Either you or I should definitely cut back on caffeine. Go, and sin no more. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 13:07:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Re-runs of Capt. Power? I liked POWER as well. Quite a lot. We did some good work. But it has this rep for being violent, there was a lot of controversy around it, and thus far, at least insofar as I know, there's been no movement by the skiffy channel or anyone else to pick up that one season. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 16:20:57 -0500 Subject: Re: text in pilot Re: "Universe Today," my feeling was that there are specialized editions beamed out to various places...the Mars Colony gets one with stories skewed to their interest, and so on. Including B5, since it's a major port. The issues are printed on recycled material; finish a copy, dump it in a drop, and it's put out again the next day. Synthetic material. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 16:23:21 -0500 Subject: Re: List of "Magical" Technolo Funnily, everyone has operated off the assumption that Knight One and Knight Two are telepaths or psi cops. But I've never said that, or to my knowledge implied it. (And no, neither character comes under that heading.) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 17:29:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 "It (B5) will be a show that is not based on characters but based on mystery." Wrong. Point a gun at someone's head. See how it affects them. Is the resultant story about the gun, or about the person it's aimed at? On all of the series I've worked on, the one strong suit I've found, the only story I'm really interested in telling, is a character story. I am not a big mystery fan. What I enjoy are the characters. While the background of our series forms a low-level subtext, every single story produced so far this season is a character story. Very *strong* character story. The only episode in which it's a little light is in the first episode, because we kind of re-establish our cast after the delay of the pilot. Even so, there's more character stuff there than in the pilot, by quite a lot. And the very next episode up, "Soul Hunter," is an extremely powerful character story. Anyway, it kind of amuses me to see someone say that B5 "will be" one kind of show or another. The only person who knows what the B5 story will be is at this end of the keyboard. And that *ain't* it. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 17 Nov 1993 22:31:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Question about Lita (sp?) We're definitely keeping the Psi Corps, with the presence of our new station telepath Talia Winters, played by Andrea Thompson. And I can say that the Corps will play a fairly substantial role in the series, in one way or another. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 18 Nov 1993 07:49:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 Thank you. Be assured that we are working very hard not to disappoint you, and I don't think we will. This is, as you perceive, not just another job for most of us involved with Babylon 5. It is a labor of love by those who enjoy SF, *for* those who enjoy SF. It's the show that *we* would want to watch, as fans. Many of us are putting in 20 hour days, fighting to make every frame just right, because it means a lot to us...and it is our hope that someday it may mean as much to others. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:10:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Gravity Ring Actually, it was always our thought that the recorders were made of an extremely ultralight material -- there's an actual term for this sort of thing that has just fallen out of my head -- kept in place by a fan system operating at high speed, gyroscopically controlled to remain stable. Sort of small hovercraft technology up 200 years or so. Ain't much magic or, for that matter, much high-tech involved in it. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:14:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Observations from the pilo Your assumption is correct; the assassin's weapon was a very small one...limited power, and a charge-up sequence that becomes longer the more it's used. If the Minbari had shot Lyta, it would've taken too long for the gun to power-up again for him to shoot Sinclair...and he would've been captured. We slightly expanded the power-up whine for each shot after the first one. You'll note that the first shot, the one that takes out Varner, is almost immediate. Points and fires. Gradually it takes longer, and finally the gun runs out altogether (which is why, though we probably should've been clearer in showing this, the assassin finally went hand-to-hand with Sinclair...the gun was never meant as an assault weapon, more as a derringer, with a few shots in case he got into trouble). jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:21:03 -0500 Subject: Will B-5 be a "cartoon"? I don't have anything to do with the promos, for the most part, don't make the promos, and in this case still haven't seen this particular promo. Sometimes I think they stress the action aspect more than the character stuff, because it's easier to blow out action in 15 to 30 seconds than character. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 18 Nov 1993 08:42:44 -0500 Subject: Here's Info on LOSCON, where j At the LosCon presentation on Thanksgiving Saturday, I'll be showing scenes from upcoming shows, one nifty out-take, and "Midnight on the Firing Line," our debut episode, *in its entirety*. Present will be me, story editor Larry DiTillio, and tentatively, Harlan Ellison and several of our cast members. They've given us the biggest room at the con, but it's already looking like it's going to be packed to the rafters, so I would suggest that anyone attending show up early...when we screened the B5 pilot at last year's LosCon, its west coast debut, there was nearly a mini-riot over seating. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:34:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek Shawn, excuse me if I'm just a tad curt here, but given that you have not seen a single episode, have not read a single script for the series, for you to say that in the B5 series, characters "have been forced to take subordinate roles" is, frankly, more than a little nuts. In the message from you just preceding that, you indicate that you don't think the show may work on ANY level, all based on your assumptions which have nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- to do with the *reality* of what we're doing here. If I might be so bold, may I suggest that you actually *see* an episode or two before reviewing the series? One can review the pilot all one wants, but we've changed a *lot* since that pilot, including some elements of how we're going to approach the series and the overall arc of the story. Call me crazy, but I kinda like to *see* the painting before I decide whether or not I like the brush strokes. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:47:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek "The pilot wasn't good. Face it!" I'm at the head of the line to point out flaws in the pilot. Flaws that we've dealt with. But a) it still holds up, and b) you are trying to make your opinion into *fact*. It ain't. An awful lot of people liked the pilot a lot. To them, it was good. Maybe to you, it wasn't, but that's only true for you. That you may think persimmon yoghurt is the best flavor ever created doesn't make it true for everybody else. Just a moment for perspective here.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 01:56:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Will B-5 be a "cartoon"? The point you make is absolutely true. For every person who wants to do something, there are always 15 people to tell him or her why it can't be done, why it won't work, why you'll fail. Okay, fine, there are risks. Nothing of substance is ever accomplished WITHOUT taking risks. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you don't. But what's the alternative? One of my prize items in my office is a WWII pin from the Royal Air Force. It has the following motto emblazoned on it: "Who Dares, Wins." You have to dare from time to time. For six years -- seven by the time this series hits air -- there have been people saying that this show couldn't be done...that it couldn't be done for the money (we proved otherwise), that you couldn't get the kind of EFX you'd need in television (proved that wrong), and now this comes along. And we'll prove that wrong as well. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 16:41:27 -0500 Subject: User-Friendly and MSG to JMS Interesting info re: the phone company. I may use that at some point if the question comes up. Also, our PR people are definitely working with the print media; I would imagine the push will start really manifesting itself toward the end of the year. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 16:41:48 -0500 Subject: Why not guns? Why use PPGs instead of Uzi-style projectile weapons/automatic weapons? Most of the walls inside B5 are metal. Does the term "ricochet" ring a bell...? jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:06:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 Re: jms/jms...don't worry. Everybody misspells Straczynski. smj From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:30:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Story Ideas Problem The whole idea as to what constitutes an idea, and what constitutes a story, is fuzzy. And the sad reality is that one need not be able to win a case in order to *file* a case. And fighting a lawsuit can cost upwards of $100,000, which is usually unrecoverable. It's just an increasingly ugly situation. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 20 Nov 1993 04:11:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek "If JMS had not mentioned the hole in Sinclair's mind, what would have been the reason for the assassin to try and kill Sinclair?" Hello...did you see the same movie that I wrote? The assassin was not there to kill Sinclair. He was there to kill Kosh. He tried to kill Kosh. He tried to stay AWAY from Sinclair, did everything in his power to avoid Sinclair, ran from Sinclair, and only finally encountered Sinclair when Sinclair came after HIM. Then it was nominal self-defense. Had the "hole in the mind" reference never been made, it would have been clear -- at least clear to every other carbon-based lifeform who saw the movie -- that the assassin 1) came to try and kill Kosh, 2) in the hope of disrupting the purpose of Babylon 5, with the added benefit of 3) if he failed in his mission, setting up Sinclair to take the rap for his actions. At the very end, rather than be captured and interrogated, the Minbari assassin killed himself with an implanted bomb. His comment to Sinclair at that moment was more of an "Up yours" comment, designed to shatter Sinclair with the knowledge that he knew something Sinclair didn't. You keep saying he was there to kill Sinclair. He wasn't. He didn't. He didn't try. It makes it hard to have this conversation with you if your comments don't touch reality at any two contiguous points. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:28:40 -0500 Subject: JMS' demons An interesting bit of demonology. And there is certainly some measure of validity to it. A story is only as good as the questions that it answers. The writer's job is to always ask the next question. The problem is as often in finding the right question as it is in finding the right response. One thing I've discovered in something like 10 years of net-surfing is that I'm always surprised. And in the case of B5, there have been many questions raised, many challenges made, for which I didn't have immediate, ready answers. It's forced me to think about things and come up with answers I didn't know I needed until the question was posed. All things considered, it's been a valuable and educational experience. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:32:51 -0500 Subject: Blooper Reel There is, for lack of a better term, a Christmas reel...but it's strictly internal. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:58:31 -0500 Subject: Who did it? I don't even know why I'm dignifying this with a response...but a) MGM does not produce B5, the PTEN and Warner Bros. are the B5 umbrella, and b) B5's treatment and screenplay and bible go back to 1987. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 00:58:32 -0500 Subject: Famous people We're doing a few things in that area, mainly background stuff, using a consistent news network (Interstellar Network News, ISN), building up a picture about politics back home; the problem is that when someone says, "Did you see Ross Perot on TV last night?", we have a shared societal understanding of who Perot is. That carries more meaning than just a random name. But I take your point; it's something we've done a little, and don't mind expanding if we can avoid getting obscure. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 01:22:45 -0500 Subject: Straczynski seems to be an ann Let me, in far less pejorative terms than those used by you, try and set your mind at ease. Or not. Regarding how I present myself here...I don't think about it one way or another. I honestly don't much care how I'm perceived. Who and what I am, if I'm annoying or a saint or just another Joe, is utterly and completely irrelevant to the work. Fifty years from now, when I'm long gone to dust, no one's going to remember me for being a swell guy, or a rotten guy. All that matters, all that remains, is the work...if I did a good job, the work will live on. If not...nothing matters. My job here, as I perceive it, is to provide an inside glimpse into how a TV series is produced; to engage the viewers of SF television in a genuine dialogue and thus *engage* them instead of simply *exploiting* them, as is generally the rule, out of some measure of respect, and by virtue of being a fan myself. I'm frequently asked by studio people why, in an average day where I get maybe 4 hours sleep, I continue to take part in a process that, overall, will maybe reach a few thousand people...a number so small it doesn't even show up in the ratings. They sense, and they're probably right, that all of this dialogue probably won't add a single ratings point to the show. Which is fine by me; that's not the entirety of why I'm here. I could try to explain it to them, but I doubt very much it would work. Okay, you find me annoying. My response: that's life. I never said I was bunny-rabbit cute. Never promised that you'd like me. Being well liked is not why I'm here. I hope to provide a service. If you find that service useful, that's great. If you don't like the service, well, like I said...that's life. To your point that I "don't understand the background in cyber politics," and that I should understand how these nets work...I've been modeming since 300 bps modems were considered speed-demons. I was one of the first subscribers to Compuserve. I completely understand how the nets work. What I don't understand, and don't allow to fly without challenge, is an attack that stems from plain, mean-spirited vindictiveness by that small slice of the fan community that feels it is not only correct but *required* to tear down others. If someone has an honest question or a problem with something, I try to answer that question with as much grace and politeness as I can. And sometimes, when those questions come in very blunt terms, it's hard. But I do try. On the other hand, if I see someone coming into visual range with nothing more on his agenda than to slam people, insult people, villify and destroy someone out of an excess of bile and a notable lack of good manners...the kind of fan who gives the rest of us a bad name...then I feel no compunction whatsoever against firing back. Hard. Generally in proportion to the offensiveness of the original message. This is the one thing that I've noted, time and time again, on this and other nets. I've seen someone call down the vilest terms to describe a particular writer, smear the person, demean and debase the person, but when someone has the nerve to actually respond in kind, and call this person out in the same terms he used on someone else...well, THAT'S outRAgeous! How rude! My feeling: tough. You don't want to get your face bit off, don't do something as monumentally stupid as sticking it in the lion cage. Or more simply...try the Golden Rule sometime: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (a tenet that seems to be lost on a certain portion of BBSers). Which brings me back around to Harlan Ellison. You don't like my defending Harlan. Or the fact that I am forceful in doing so. So? Harlan is my friend. He has also been the target of cheap, unwarranted, vicious attacks by that lunatic fringe that sits festering on the edge of legitimate fandom. Maybe you're content to see your friend jumped by strangers and beaten up for kicks. Maybe you'd sit by the side of the road and watch. Or turn away. Or sell tickets. I can't do that. One thing that Harlan and I have in common is that we're both out of the streets. I'm basically a New Jersey kid, born in Paterson, and raised for a long time in the streets of Newark. If you know Newark, you understand what that means without further need of explanation. Much of my attitude was formed in the streets. And one of the first things you learn, the first rule you take to heart, is that if somebody jumps your buddy, or attacks your buddy, he's attacking you as well. YOu don't cut and run. Whatever the cost. Maybe you think that's "macho posturing," as you put it. It's the way I run my life. I know such things aren't fashionable just now, but I happen to care deeply for and about my friends, and if they're in trouble, if someone is smearing their reputation or trying to harm them out of mean-spiritedness, I will not stand idly by with my finger up my nose pretending it isn't happening. Maybe you can do that. I can't. I have no difficulty in, as you say, "letting water roll off (my) back." But this wasn't my back. It was a friend's. I've put up with a LOT from people on some of these systems. And not taken it personally. It does roll off my back. But a vicious smear or an attack on a *friend* will not go unanswered. You don't like it, that's your choice. I'm not doing it for you, and I'm not doing it to impress anyone, or make friends, or be nice. This is what I do because I can't do otherwise, because this is who and what I am. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 19:26:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe As an advisory, in addition to me, story editor Larry DiTillio, and tentatively Harlan Ellison, we've confirmed that Michael O'Hare, Mira Furlan, and Peter Jurasik will be at the LosCon presentation next Saturday. More names may be added to that. I request that I will make at the presentation, and which I'll set up here, is to minimize any kind of spoiler discussion of the episode until it airs. It's two months to airdate, and we'd like some parts of the show to be a surprise to the viewers. General reactions are great, but if we could keep spoiler-type discussions to a minimum, I'd be very happy. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 19:31:28 -0500 Subject: Walter Koenig on QVC Darn, I missed Walter's appearance on QVC; e it. As for when you can expect to see me on QVC...never. That just isn't something I care to get into. Merchandising is fine and inevitable, but I think that if you get too into it, it begins to change your direction a bit. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 20:00:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Straczynski seems to be an Much of the response I have to your message on a personal level I've said elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here. But to deal with a couple of the things you mention.... "...because (I) knew this woman (Tamlyn, I) would use her on this show regardless of what people unconnected with her emotionally thought of her acting ability." This is, frankly, untrue and a distortion of the facts. Prior to casting Tamlyn, I had never before met her, and except at the screening of the pilot and one live TV gig, have not seen her again since doing the pilot. I am not "emotionally connected" to her. This is not nepotism. What you are doing is taking a thread that was on another system and distorting it. There were some very harsh, demeaning things said about Tamlyn, many of them flat-out uncalled for...hurtful and ugly comments. I stood up for Tamlyn as a performer. When we did a later analysis of the pilot, our decision to recast the role of the lieutenant commander was influenced not by anyone's individual performance, but by the synergy of the performers as an ensemble. Tamlyn is a terrific performer; if you've seen her in the Joy Luck Club, or her appearance on Quantum Leap, or elsewhere, her skill is much in evidence. She is a kind and decent person, and no, I wouldn't allow her to be BBS brutalized by a certain small fringe element, and won't do so now, and won't allow myself to be bullied by that small fringe. Any decisions made will not be based on that kind of crap. Nepotism doesn't enter into it. On that you're simply dead wrong. On this "mental model" you've constructed of me based upon my many posts here...I am not liable for your perceptions. A French writer once observed, "A book is like a mirror. If an ass peers in, you can't very well expect an apostle to peer out." jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 21 Nov 1993 20:01:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe BTW, I suspect that the Woody Harper you're responding to, is the same Woody Harper who engaged in a bit of BBS terrorism/deliberate misinformation, and who I had to take a couple days to hunt down. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 22 Nov 1993 05:13:05 -0500 Subject: A PLOT REQUEST No "evil alternate universe" episodes are planned, nor do I think they will be. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:16:46 -0500 Subject: When will the Laserdisc of the I know that the plan is to eventually release the episodes on disk in all their widescreen/surround-sound glory, but when that might be is anyone's guess. Heck, I'll be first in line at the video store.... jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:18:28 -0500 Subject: Air Date The date I've heard most often for the series' debut is January 26th. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:20:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Babylon 5 Oops, the letter just sent to you was intended for Gharlane, and sent by accident (the letter about the B5 bathroom). Sorry for the mis-type,and hope it gets to Gharlane. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:21:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Babylon 5 The bathroom scene was written, but shifted back a bit because we decided to go for some different sets, and felt that the money could be used better there. We have an *amazing* number of sets as it is; 16 standing sets and another 10 or so swing sets. So we'll either do that scene later in the season, or wait until season two, and a fresh construction budget. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:26:43 -0500 Subject: Re: JMS' demons You're right; the events of the Line are something that Sinclair doesn't much like talking about, and has been advised *against* talking about. When the Minbari surrendered, Earth put the best possible spin on it, tried to make the survivors of the Line look like heroes, but there's a general sense of what happened. And a great deal of dismay over it. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 08:04:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Babylon 5 I'd say that, in certain instances, you may be more right than wrong in your speculations. While I've certainly been positive about the show -- and believe I have good reason to be positive -- I have avoid directly over-hyping the show. I've never, to the best of my knowledge, said that this will be the best series in SF-TV history. What I've said, by and large, is what we're *doing*, and not much more. When I get excited about something, I say so, and I'm specific to that episode. The greater measure of what you might term "hype" comes from those who've followed the show, and from one important fact: any promise I make on the content of a show, I keep. I'm very careful about that. The problem, though, with a show like this, presented in this fashion, is that when people come to expect a Great Show, long ahead of airdate, they begin to sketch out in their heads the show that *they* would most like to see, the show they would make if given the chance. And that means you've got -- what? -- ten thousand different versions of a show. There's no way that anything I do can be exactly what every single person would most like to see, what he or she sees in his/her mind's eye. So there will have to be some readjustment to what the show *is* I think, though, that the average SF-TV viewer is sharp enough to figure that out, and adjust. For myself, all I can do is make the best show I can, the show that *I* would like to see made, that I would like to watch...and hope for the best. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 09:58:24 -0500 Subject: Question on names G'Kar's first assistant was Ko D'ath, who met with an unfortunate accident with an airlock. The replacement is Na'Toth (no L), who will be staying around for a while. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 18:22:17 -0500 Subject: Re: jms's "attitude" You have now made several charges of nepotism against me. If we all speak the same langauge, then nepotism is hiring people not qualified to do a particular job because they're cronies or relatives. If someone is eminently qualified to do the job, it's not nepotism. If the person is neither a friend nor a relative, it's not nepotism. Please cite to me one single instance in which I have engaged in this kind of behavior, or withdraw your allegation. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 18:22:50 -0500 Subject: Open response to Mr. Straczyns So let me get this straight...your problem is that I have moments when I'm cheerful, and polite...and moments when, fatigued by 20 hour days, I sometimes get a little sharper than I might like. Okay, I'm human. So what? Your other problem, at the center of this, is that I don't behave the way YOU think I should behave. Once again...so what? I don't HAVE to fit your definition. I didn't fight all these years to find my own voice, and become my own person, and produce my own show, only to worry about whether I fit Rob's picture of a perfect person. I'm sorry, but I have substantially more interesting things to worry about. You use the word "sophmoric" a lot. I could just as easily turn that around. I could sit and dissect your messages, what I think you are by your language choice, approach, and similar subjects. But you state, "You don't know how I (Rob) am, where I came from, or my background; I'd also rather not bring it up." Curious how you seem to feel that YOU are off-limits to speculation, but others aren't...even though we're both on the nets. This discussion, absent your unsubstantiated allegations, is rather pointless. I am who I am, I behave the way I behave. You don't like it. I don't like your behavior or your tendency to stick your nose in my psyche and engage in some long-distance dime-store psychoanalysis, for which you are neither qualified nor welcome. That's showbiz. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 20:46:30 -0500 Subject: Query to JMS on a minor point I've noticed the same thing; he blinks when he wants to, and refuses to let go of you the rest of the time. We've also given him a LOT more to do of a character-based nature, and I think people are going to be very pleased in what they see. The problem with the role of commander is that it's the toughest one in the bunch...he has to be firm and commanding, but vulnerable...able to be angry, but compassionate...ready to fight but just as ready for affection...and I think that what was shown of the pilot (minus the nearly half-hour that was cut) only really showed one side. We're showing a lot more now, and Michael's doing a hell of a job carrying it all. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:34:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Series plot, was Re: Trek I never said that the commander's intent wasn't to set up Sinclair; I only said that he wasn't there to *kill* Sinclair. That aspect of making Sinclair the patsy was very much part of the thing. (Oops, just realized that I mis-typed; that should be "I never said that the ASSASSIN'S intent wasn't to set up Sinclair," not "the commander's intent." Slip of the tongue. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:45:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Here's Info on LOSCON, whe Then in the spirit of goodwill I apologize and we begin anew. jms (no smiley face) From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:47:50 -0500 Subject: Request for JMS's Address I can be reached at the following address: 14431 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 260, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 24 Nov 1993 03:36:23 -0500 Subject: Stories I never want to see on Going over your list of stories...nope, nope...nopenopenopenope.... Guess we must be doing something wrong. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 25 Nov 1993 03:14:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Trek vs. B5 The advance plotting on the series has made the show neither more nor less difficult. It's mainly just...*different*. In addition to threading the arc through many episodes (sometimes in a big way, sometimes in very small, subtle ways), you've often got an A and a B story, plus we've got 14 regular and recurring characters (though not all 14 appear in every episode), all of whom have their *own* individual character arcs...and that's a LOT of balls to keep up in the air at any given moment. What it HAS done is to enrich the texture of all of our individual episodes. You get a) a genuine sense that there are PEOPLE in your story, each with his or her own life, agenda, problems, and b) that these people are GOING somewhere, that there's a submerged thread that ties them together that is slowly, gradually coming into view. This is a trick that I've learned to do on earlier shows, in different ways. On Captain Power, we had an arc for that series, though less complex than this one...and we learned how to drop in just a reference here or there, continuing the feeling of a spider at the center of the story that, when it moved, caused the whole web to vibrate slightly. Also, on the animated series The Real Ghostbusters, I had to write/story edit on two levels...making sure the show was understandable to non-adults, while at the same time slipping things in that only adults could appreciate. The younger audience wouldn't get the references, but they'd go by so fast that they wouldn't notice, and that wouldn't get in the way of enjoying the story. (And we got REAL obscure...an episode story requiring the presence of a specific small group of eskimos in order to conduct a ritual was explained to someone as "sort of an Inuit minyan." Probably only five people on the planet caught that one, but hey, why not?) jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 25 Nov 1993 23:17:58 -0500 Subject: Making of Babylon 5 -document? There have been several behind-the-scenes pieces cut already; one at 8 minutes, slated mainly toward potential advertisers, has already gone out on the downlink. At some point a 12 and 30 minute piece will go out. When that happens, I don't know. It's been sold overseas, to Channel 4 in the U.K., but don't have the specifics yet on other markets. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 25 Nov 1993 23:21:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Query to JMS on a minor po At this point, I suspect that the only version of the pilot that will ever be released (barring major success on our part) is the one that's now in distribution. Making a new version with the missing 25 minutes would require massive editing (there was never a full version made, since we're editing on computer file graphics, only going to film when we're done), and right now that's not in anyone's budget. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 29 Nov 1993 01:20:19 -0500 Subject: Re: B5 at LosCon What you and the others seem to be pointing out is what I've been trying -- imperfectly, as best I can -- to communicate for some time. In the case of "Midnight," can you follow that show and enjoy it absolutely on its own terms? I believe that is the case. There's another level there, the "little clues and hints" you mention, which will just skate past most casual viewers and not in any way interfere with their viewing of the episode...but if you're paying attention, and you catch them, it adds a new level. The more you see, the more you begin to perceive that second level. It's a cumulative effect that doesn't diminish the single episodes as stand-alones. jms From: straczynski@genie.geis.com Date: 29 Nov 1993 01:44:10 -0500 Subject: Re: B5 at LosCon (Lost the last paragraph of my message.) In any event, what I'm striving for is the idea that you can watch the episodes for the character stories, OR the story arc, OR the individual stories, OR all three at the same time, all in the same exact episodes. You can get out as much as you're willing to find. It's a very weird kind of writing...but at least on this end, it's kinda fun, actually. jms